Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on July 18, 2016, 08:05:55 PM
-
Really, Kelvin?
http://www.channel4.com/news/channel-4-news-statement
-
While I am not defending anyone, what is wrong with his comments. Surely he is entitled to an opinion.
-
What did he say?
I've just been reading about a man who ripped off a woman's niquab.
It wasn about that was it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-36832619
-
Well for a start one might have hoped for a smidgen of humility from the editor of the Sun at the time of Hillsborough. As to the wrongness here would it have been inappropraite for a Catholic to report on an IRA bombing? How about is it appropriate for a man to report on this? After all it was carried out by a man?
-
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/sun-column-on-nice-attack-journalist-wearing-hijab-on-channel-4-sparks-200-complaints/ar-BBuu7Qe?li=BBoPWjQ&OCID=ansmsnnews11
-
This is what Kelvin MacKenzie actually said:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1459893/why-did-channel-4-have-a-presenter-in-a-hijab-to-front-coverage-of-muslim-terror-in-nice/
I saw some of the Ch4 news report that he talks about and have to say that I didn't give the woman reporter's headgear a second thought until reading this, I'm sure no-one else did either.
Yes jp, Mr MacKenzie is entitled to his opinion but what he says shows him to be a grossly bumptious, ignorant prat by drawing attention to someone's dress that would otherwise have been hardly noticed. He typifies the bigot, an anachronistic figure whose views place him firmly back in the 1950s and early 60s. I'm pretty sure nobody else would have found the use of a reporter in hijab 'insensitive' after the Nice attack.
On ITV we've had Rageh Omaar talking about Islamic terrorism and Sadiq Khan was interviewed about such things before and after becoming London Mayor; of course they don't wear a hijab (at least not outside their own homes ;)), but are obviously Muslim. Rageh used to report from the firing line during the first Gulf war and he was a star!
Why is there house room for the better educated Alf Garnett types in British journalism? Those of his ilk plant seeds in otherwise vacant minds of the ignorant, and are dangerous.
-
While I am not defending anyone, what is wrong with his comments. Surely he is entitled to an opinion.
But was the opinion helpful in the current climate, JP? Does it take the debate backwards or forwards? Have to admit to not having seen the bulletin question - I don't tend not to watch the Channel 4 news, let alone read the red-tops. However, I saw the link to the story on the Beeb's website earlier. The
-
It does not take the likes of Kelvin MacKenzie to sow any seeds. Many people are not as thick as you think.
Time for a little quiz. Which of these, both said to women, would be more likely to get the regressive left up in arms and land you in bother with the plod
A) Cover up you slag, you dress like a whore.
or
B) Take that heascarf off you stupid subservient bitch.
-
It does not take the likes of Kelvin MacKenzie to sow any seeds. Many people are not as thick as you think.
Time for a little quiz. Which of these, both said to women, would be more likely to get the regressive left up in arms and land you in bother with the plod
A) Cover up you slag, you dress like a whore.
or
B) Take that heascarf off you stupid subservient bitch.
And JP tries an irrelevant tu quoque.
-
*doffs cap to superior intellect*
-
*doffs cap to superior intellect*
In what way was it relevant to the issue with MacKenzie's comments on Fatima Manji? You have had a variety of points made in the thread but instead of addressing any you choose to talk about something unconnected and tried a bit of a tu quoque (irrelevant because it's not even a tu here).
-
Kelvin McKenzie voices an opinion and is called a " bumptious, ignorant prat by drawing attention to someone's dress that would otherwise have been hardly noticed" and likened to Alf Garnett (btw, I would have noticed as it sticks out like a sore thumb, a lot of other people noticed as well)
Channel 4 said his comments were " offensive, completely unacceptable, and arguably tantamount to inciting religious and even racial hatred" so I just thought I would test the water with a couple of examples as to what would get you in trouble.
Plus, I still don't know what race Islam is. Is it the same race as Christianity?
-
Well they did say, "..and even racial hatred", racism is not a given as Muslims come from all races. However people tend to think of most Muslims as Middle Eastern/Indian sub-continent so that is where the possibility of racial hatred comes in.
Regarding the two insults to women you proposed above: I think they are equally offensive and would rile anyone.
-
Well Brownie, they might rile anyone but which one may be more likely to land you in trouble with the law.
-
Kelvin McKenzie voices an opinion and is called a " bumptious, ignorant prat by drawing attention to someone's dress that would otherwise have been hardly noticed" and likened to Alf Garnett (btw, I would have noticed as it sticks out like a sore thumb, a lot of other people noticed as well)
Channel 4 said his comments were " offensive, completely unacceptable, and arguably tantamount to inciting religious and even racial hatred" so I just thought I would test the water with a couple of examples as to what would get you in trouble.
Plus, I still don't know what race Islam is. Is it the same race as Christianity?
And that covers ignoring the points made because?
As to the 'even racial hatred' I think you need to see the word 'even' there - it's a qualifier and covers that given Mackenzie's remarks it might just be about brown people shouldn't report on brown people.
Also you didn't just present two sets ofinsults, you questioned how the 'regressive left' would react.
Anyway that aside - are you in agreement with Mackenzie? If not, what point are you trying to make, because I'm struggling to see it currently?
-
Well Brownie, they might rile anyone but which one may be more likely to land you in trouble with the law.
Either, I would think. Are people allowed to go around calling others "slags" and "whores"? If they are, they shouldn't be. Certainly if someone spoke like that at work, they'd be sacked.
-
Kelvin McKenzie voices an opinion and is called a " bumptious, ignorant prat by drawing attention to someone's dress that would otherwise have been hardly noticed"
I think you miss the point. It's not really about her dress which merely marked her out as a Muslim. His really problem was with the idea of a Muslim presenting an item about another Muslim who killed lots of people.
That's what makes him a bumptious ignorant prat.
By the way, some of the victims were Muslims.
-
I think you miss the point. It's not really about her dress which merely marked her out as a Muslim. His really problem was with the idea of a Muslim presenting an item about another Muslim who killed lots of people.
That's what makes him a bumptious ignorant prat.
By the way, some of the victims were Muslims.
Yes it was about that Jeremy, Kelvin MacKenzie obviously has something against Muslims but won't actually say so. Knowing what I do about him, that doesn't surprise me.
Indeed there were Muslims amongst the casualties, several Muslims were interviewed on the news.
There is nothing wrong with a Muslim journalist reporting or commenting on a terrorist attack perpetrated by extremist Muslims, no-one would bat an eyelid if a white European nominal Christian reported on an atrocity committed by a white person of the Christian persuasion. Double standards.
-
I think people are entitled to their opinion. I think the freedom to express your opinion in the UK is diminishing.
-
I think people are entitled to their opinion. I think the freedom to express your opinion in the UK is diminishing.
The right to free speech does not include immunity from criticism.
It is your right to say something stupid. It is the right of everybody else to tell you it is stupid.
-
I think people are entitled to their opinion. I think the freedom to express your opinion in the UK is diminishing.
Not entirely sure what this has to do with the thread, nor how it is an answer to my question but hey ho.
You seem to be confused in that you seem to regard people expressing an opinion about other's opinions as somehow restricting them
And before we go any further, can I just check if you believe in absolute freedom of speech, or are we just discussing where to draw a line?
-
Perhaps we should do as Belgium and France have done ban all head wear. Except normal hats of course.
-
Perhaps we should do as Belgium and France have done ban all head wear. Except normal hats of course.
No more nuns.
-
I didn't know the hijab was banned in Belgium and France though I remember mutterings about it, as there have been here. However I can't see how a hijab would bother anyone, some are really pretty and colourful and women who wear them generally make their faces up beautifully.
Sheitels are not banned in Belgium and women often wear a hat over one of those too. In Belgium the sheitels are more elaborate than over here, often long and flowing! There would be uproar if they were banned. Double standards.
However this thread was about a Muslim journalist speaking about a terrorist attack, and another journalist feeling that was somehow wrong. I suppose if she hadn't worn a hijab and pretended to be a Sikh, he wouldn't have worried. If a Catholic journalist had reported on the IRA terrorist attacks over here years ago, would that have invoked Kelvin McKenzie's criticism? Honestly I despair of the thinking of a journalist who is one of my countrymen, it's embarrassing.
A thought inspired by my last paragraph - are Sikh men not permitted to wear turbans in Belgium?
No hijabs - no sheitels - no turbans. No variety, no diversity of religion, no colour in society. How bland.
No thanks.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095
Not quite all head coverings, see link
-
No more nuns.
Do nuns cover their faces?
If the ban includes all head wear then it has to be so.
But as far as I was aware it is head wear which conceals your face.
But if that is the way, then so be it. Fair for everyone.
-
A hijab doesn't cover the face. The journalist was not wearing a burqa but a hijab.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095
Not quite all head coverings, see link
I thought it was just those which covered the face... :)
-
Thanks for the link NS, which clarifies things. There is a world of difference between head covering and full face covering.
However, I particularly noticed this from the link you posted:
France
A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004, and received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.
I understand and appreciate the separation of state and religion but still, France is comprised of people with diverse religious beliefs and cultures. The ban seems wrong to me, nevertheless it is up to the French and as nobody is harmed, not my business. I'm glad we don't have such a ban here though. It is good, imo, for schoolchildren to mix freely with those from many different cultural and religious backgrounds; if they do that they will not attach undue importance to anyone who wears something that they don't wear, in fact they will hardly notice it.
-
Unless your cultural or religions background opposes mixing freely.
-
cough cough - ISLAM - cough cough !!!!!!
OH Sorry about that bit of coughing there. !!!
-
Unless your cultural or religions background opposes mixing freely.
I've not come across many who don't mix freely except the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities (eg Chassidic).
They not only have distinctive dress but live in areas almost exclusively populated by their own community and have their own schools. They mix with people of other cultures, in business, if they have to seek medical advice or go to hospital and other situations, are extremely friendly too, but they do not mix socially at all.
Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, non-Orthodox Jews, Zoroastrians (probably others I can't think of atm), all mix at school, work and socially and are extremely friendly and hospitable.
-
The idea of banning all headwear is quite comical, really, although the original story is very nasty. What an idiot.
-
While I am not defending anyone, what is wrong with his comments. Surely he is entitled to an opinion.
Of course he is. So was the late, unlamented Colin Jordan, the British Nazi, and so is that ghastly Hopkins woman, and so is Ken Ham, the ultra-fundy who founded 'Answers in Genesis', and so is Nigel Farage, and they are all also wrong, and mostly an utter disgrace to humanity. "S/he's entitled to her/his opinion" is the most fatuous, brainless, pointless comment it is possible to make. Yes, everyone is so entitled,: so what?
-
Hmmm, so observing and commenting on what he did is equivalent to Nazism etc. What a load of bollocks.
People are too thin skinned these days. Had Dave Allen done his show now I expect there would be mass leftie protests outside and he would have been arrested and jailed.
-
Of course not Brownie, I expect you haven't. Only some Jews. Nobody else. Nobody.
-
I'm not saying there aren't any small exclusive, rather extremist groups who don't mix outside but they are very few and far between. I believe some of the Brethren live like that though they interract with people outside their faith because they have to. I wouldn't make such groups illegal as long as they don't interfere with anyone else - and they don't. This is a free country after all and diversity is celebrated. I happen to like that, living in London and working in central London until I retired, I know no different.
However I suppose, or I assume, your attitude concerns fear of extremist would-be-terrorist Muslims. Like Kelvin McKenzie. I wish people would come right out and say it.